[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NATIONAL FLOOD PLAIN REMAPPING: THE PRACTICAL IMPACT
=======================================================================
(110-108)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 2, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-772 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Virginia
Pennsylvania, Vice Chair CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee York
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota JOHN L. MICA, Florida
(Ex Officio) (Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Boozman, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arkansas.................................................... 5
Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.............................................. 5
Hall, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York.................................................... 5
Larson, Larry A., Executive Director, National Association of
State Flood Plain Managers..................................... 37
Matsui, Hon. Doris O., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California............................................ 5
Maurstad, David, Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency............................ 17
Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.............................................. 5
Sterman, Les, Executive Director, East-West Gateway Coordinating
Council, St. Louis, Missouri................................... 37
Stockton, Steven, Deputy Director of Civil Works, United States
Army Corps of Engineers........................................ 17
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 45
Hall, Hon. John J., of New York.................................. 46
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia......... 48
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 51
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Larson, Larry A.................................................. 55
Maurstad, David I................................................ 63
Sterman, Les..................................................... 68
Stockton, Steven L............................................... 71
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Maurstad, David, Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, responses to questions
from Rep. Arcuri............................................... 25
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
County of Merced, California, Paul Fillebrown, Director of Public
Works, written statement....................................... 80
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.004
HEARING ON NATIONAL FLOOD PLAIN REMAPPING: THE PRACTICAL IMPACT
----------
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eleanor
Holmes Norton [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Norton. Good morning. The Subcommittee welcomes all of
our witnesses this morning. We extend special greetings to our
colleagues from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
who will testify. They have been deputized, as it were, by
their local communities to bring us straight-from-the-field the
information the Subcommittee needs to evaluate just how the new
Federal flood mapping will work on the ground.
The need to engage in hazard prevention cannot be doubted;
floods are the most common hazards in the United States. Right
now Midwest communities are being ravaged by floods. Flood
effects can be local, affecting a neighborhood or community, or
they can ravage entire river basins and multiple States. The
flooding produced by Hurricane Katrina alerted the Nation to
the possibility of unanticipated devastation, even in areas
accustomed to severe flooding.
Flood hazards exist in all 50 States and here in the
District of Columbia. They are especially common in low-lying
areas, near water or down stream from a dam. It is not uncommon
to see small streams or low-lying ground that appear harmless
in dry weather become flooded after a heavy rain or significant
snow fall. Nevertheless, many raise the legitimate question
whether wholesale national remapping based on essentially a one
percent chance of severe flooding is worth the time and
expense. This is one of the questions we will raise in this
hearing this morning.
However, the remapping function certainly did not originate
with Hurricane Katrina. The National Flood Insurance Program,
or the NFIP, began in 1968, with the National Flood Insurance
Act to control devastation incurred from floods nationally.
Although the program started in HUD, the Federal Insurance
Administration moved to FEMA when it was created in 1979. The
program is now part of the Mitigation Division at FEMA. FEMA is
the natural and appropriate home for this program because
floods are the greatest natural hazard faced annually by
communities.
The NFIP works hand-in-glove with FEMA'S efforts in
disaster preparedness, recovery response, and mitigation. The
program offers incentives to help communities identify and
reduce flooding hazards, and to take steps to mitigate the
damage to property and the risk of loss of life. When a
community agrees to adopt and enforce floodplain management
ordinances, particularly for new construction, the Federal
Government makes flood insurance available to homeowners and to
business owners.
FEMA estimates that floodplain management measures prevent
$1.4 billion in property losses annually, and today 98 percent
of the Country, including up to 20,000 communities, is covered
by the flood insurance program. The program provides about 5.5
million policies with over a $1 trillion dollars in coverage.
Approximately 90 companies sell flood insurance policies on
behalf of FEMA. The point of all of this is to reduce the need
for Federal disaster assistance under the Stafford Act.
The Subcommittee is well aware that flood hazards change
with time because of physical changes in topography caused by
wildfire, erosion, and infrastructure construction and the
like. We also are painfully aware that floods can cause levees
to fail. Hurricane Katrina all but bequeathed the current flood
mapping effort to the Nation. We do not doubt that the FEMA
remapping is timely or that the Corps of Engineers effort is
essential. However, necessity is not always the mother of
invention. Communities must be convinced of both the risks and
the benefits.
Time for communities to do the necessary work must be
realistically assessed and granted. The question concerning
expense and whether the remapping requirements constitute an
unfunded mandate must be answered. The actual effect on
Federal-backed mortgages and on eligibility for Federal
disaster assistance must be described. Requiring the costs
mandated by flood remapping in the midst of the most serious
downturn in the economy in years must be justified. Not only
explaining the remapping process itself, but answering
questions such as these are what hearings are for.
The Subcommittee has much to learn from the Members whose
districts are affected by the new remapping effort who will
testify today; from FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers
officials who will explain the how and why of the process; from
experts; and from witnesses who can express the views of local
communities and business. The Subcommittee greatly appreciates
the testimony of all of the witnesses who will testify this
morning.
Thank you, and I am pleased to ask the Ranking Member, Mr.
Graves, if he has any opening remarks this morning.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me also thank our
witnesses for being here today. I look forward to hearing the
testimony on obviously the modernization of FEMA'S flood hazard
mapping program. In particular, I want to thank the
distinguished colleagues on our first panel for taking the time
out of their busy schedules, obviously, to be here today. You
are providing testimony on the practical impact of FEMA'S flood
hazard mapping program, what it has on your congressional
districts, and I think this is an important issue to our
constituents and, for that matter, to all property owners.
I have personally seen the impact of flooding and the
impact it has on lives and property due to the recent floods in
Missouri and other parts of the Midwest. Over 70 counties in
Southern and Central Missouri were affected by the flooding
that occurred just at the end of March. This is only the most
recent flood event to impact the State. Over the past three
months, flooding has taken a great toll on the State of
Missouri, resulting in three Federal disaster declarations.
Floods are one of the most common hazards in the United
States, and currently the United States averages about $2.4
billion in annual flood losses. Recognizing the impact floods
have taken on lives and property, Congress created the National
Flood Insurance Program in 1968. The program was intended to
make insurance available to cover flood damages and promote
sound land use by minimizing exposure to flood losses and to
get people out of harm's way. To carry out this program, the
Federal Government worked with local governments to identify
and map flood hazards. Today, 20,000 communities participate in
the program and 100,000 hazard flood map panels have been
created.
Since fiscal year 2003, FEMA has undertaken an effort to
modernize these 40-year-old flood maps because of physical
changes to topography such as erosion or new development,
updated data such as rainfall records, and better technology.
The accuracy of flood maps is of the utmost importance to the
communities affected. Accurate maps are needed to strike a
balance between protecting communities from the devastation
caused by flooding and ensure that community growth and
development is not overly constrained. Without accurate flood
maps, some homeowners may be paying too much for flood
insurance, while others may not purchase flood insurance at all
because an inaccurate map shows that their property is
obviously outside of the floodplain.
Because of the great impact on communities covered by the
maps, FEMA must be responsible to community concerns.
Additionally, FEMA must provide a quick and effective way to
appeal mapping determinations in order to strike balance and
ensure accuracy. I know FEMA is trying to get it right. This is
too important not to be able to get it right.
Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today. Your testimony is going to help us better understand the
practical impact of FEMA'S map modernization program and
determine whether FEMA has attained the proper balance in
implementing the program.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Costello and
Mr. Higgins be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee. Without
objection, so ordered.
May I ask if any of the Members have statements of their
own? Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. Madam Chair, thank you. And I thank you for
calling this important hearing today. I see that we have a
distinguished panel of members before us, so I will only make
brief comments and ask unanimous consent that my full statement
be entered into the record.
Madam Chair, thank you for calling the hearing today. I
welcome our witnesses and I am pleased that one of our
witnesses on the next panel is Les Sterman, from the Regional
Council of Governments in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. I
think you will hear testimony from him that relates to my
concerns with the program.
As you know, in 2004, FEMA embarked on a map modernization
program. It is an important program; it allows us to take
advantage of revised data to help local officials and citizens
have the ability to better plan for flood-related disasters, so
I support the program. However, I have grave concerns with the
piecemeal approach that FEMA is using and pursuing at this
time.
For example, in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area,
preliminary maps will be available for review this summer for
the Illinois side of the Mississippi River. But it may be three
years before the maps are available on the Missouri side of the
River, even though both sides of the River share the same
floodplain and the same watershed. Why? Because FEMA, the
regional office, for instance, covering Illinois is pursuing
the matter of the mapping process much sooner than the regional
office that covers the State of Missouri.
While I support the map modernization program, I oppose
this piecemeal approach. I believe that the flood modernization
map for a floodplain or a watershed should be implemented for
the entire floodplain or watershed at the same time.
The Corps of Engineers follows watershed boundaries, not
State boundaries. I offered an amendment to H.R. 3121, the
Flood Insurance Modernization Act, when it passed the House.
And let me say that that amendment basically says to FEMA they
would be required to implement maps for the entire floodplain
and watershed, as opposed to the piecemeal approach that is
currently being followed.
Again, Madam Chair, I thank you for calling this hearing
today, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking
Member Graves, for allowing me to speak today.
The National Flood Insurance Program is, both in its design
and execution, the worst Federal program that I have
encountered in my time at the United States House of
Representatives. The once vibrant neighborhoods in Buffalo and
Lackawanna, New York, in which flood insurance is mandated are
effectively economic dead zones because this program provides
perverse disincentives to home ownership and to home
improvement which, over decades, have effectively turned whole
swaths of formerly vibrant urban neighborhoods into virtual
ghost towns.
It is my contention that the financial basis of this
program is unsustainable and unjustifiable. It has a payer-
payee structure in which many communities across America pay
this mandatory flood tax and see no benefit, with just a few
communities realizing assistance. In order to demonstrate this
payer-payee relationship, I am, today, submitting to Acting
Administrator Maurstad a request for a national county-by-
county breakdown of the amount paid into and out of the program
in the past 10 years.
Unfortunately, the map modernization process being
undertaken by FEMA, which is the subject of this hearing, only
tinkers at the edges of this program, instead of addressing its
fundamental flaws. In Buffalo, while some communities received
relief from the map modernization, FEMA now proposes to include
the historic old First Ward neighborhood in this economic dead
zone for the first time, a neighborhood which has stood since
the Civil War, which has never seen the type of flooding that
would result in payments from the Flood Insurance Program.
After I have received the data from FEMA regarding the
payer-payee relationship, I will forward it to the Committee
for your review and consideration. And I thank you once again,
Chairwoman Norton, for allowing me to participate in this
hearing.
[Information available, as submitted for the record by
FEMA, through Subcommittee office.]
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Higgins.
Now we will proceed to our Congressional witnesses. I will
just go from left to right.
Mr. Hall?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN J. HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THE HONORABLE DORIS O.
MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; THE HONORABLE VERNON J. EHLERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; THE HONORABLE JOHN
BOOZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS; AND THE HONORABLE CANDICE S. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Graves,
Members of the Committee, for holding this hearing and for
inviting me to testify about an issue of vital importance to
towns and cities throughout the Country.
I would like to begin by noting specifically that I am glad
the Committee has chosen to title this hearing National
Floodplain Remapping: The Practical Impact, because if there is
one point that my testimony would make to the Committee today,
I hope that it is that this process will have a real and
significant impact on the daily lives of people in my district
and elsewhere.
The results of this process will impact the value of
people's homes, the cost to maintain them, and the fate of
homes and businesses unfortunate enough to be affected by
future floods.
As we have seen in recent years, extreme weather events are
occurring with alarming frequency. Too often, these events
create flooding that leaves homes battered, businesses reeling,
infrastructure broken, and communities devastated.
My district in New York's Hudson Valley has been far from
immune. Floods have had an incredibly destructive impact in the
Hudson Valley, and in recent years the flooding has become so
frequent the town supervisors, farmers, and homeowners have
every reason to look over their shoulders or up at the skies
every time it drizzles.
The region has experienced three 50-year floods in this
decade alone. That rate of activity strains the ability of
emergency services to respond, communities to recover, and
local resource managers to prepare.
The full force of flooding impacts became evident a year
ago, during last April's nor'easter. The rains only lasted a
weekend, but the damage is still being repaired. Roads were
washed out, fields submerged, homes and businesses were
damaged. After those storms, FEMA made a disaster declaration,
opening the way for assistance. But it is clear that we need
more than an ad-hoc approach to prevention, mitigation, and
recovery.
Unfortunately, recent history and the forces of climate
change leave us with too much uncertainty to simply hope that
these events are anomalies that will soon be rendered only as
historical quirks or Weather Channel trivia. It is clear that
our Government must take steps to be prepared for future
events.
One of the most challenging consequences will be the
modernization of the National Flood Insurance Program and the
update of the National Floodplain Map. As FEMA moves forward
with this process, it must take a methodical, comprehensive
approach that will be effective, fair, and avoid undue costs to
taxpaying homeowners.
A large part of this process should be the provision of
avenues for communities, particularly those that will be newly
included in the floodplains, to voice their concerns or their
protest with FEMA without undue burden.
Several communities in Orange County, New York would be
included in the floodplain map and forced to purchase insurance
for the first time under the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate
Map regarding Base Flood Elevations within Orange County, New
York. The data needed for the appeal of a draft would require
hydrologic and hydraulic studies that must be paid for by
individual homeowners or local governments.
Despite the highly technical and costly nature of these
studies, FEMA allows only a 90-day comment period. Now, 90 days
might be a standard window here in Washington, D.C. for Federal
officials, but for homeowners in my district who are already
struggling with property taxes and small towns with limited
expertise, that is a fast turnaround.
Although FEMA has since informed my office that the review
process in one of my cities will allow other communities to
register protests until late May, these procedures are hard to
navigate and need to be made more accessible to the
stakeholders who will have to live with the impact of the new
floodplain map on a day-to-day basis. In either instance, it
would not be feasible to finance and conduct these studies
before the current public comment deadline.
I am not suggesting that towns and cities should be able to
skirt inclusion in the floodplain if it is truly warranted, but
if there are local concerns that inclusion is unjustified or
detrimental, it should be easier for communities to make their
case to FEMA directly.
Efforts to update the National Flood Insurance Program are
right to account for changing circumstances, and the new maps
should take prospective factors into account. Specifically, the
human factor of local growth and the environmental factor of
climate change must be taken into account. Both will directly
impact flood activity in the my district.
Orange County, New York is one of the fastest growing areas
in New York State. We are proud that more people are choosing
to make the county their home and are working hard to manage
the development that their presence requires. The region is
also blessed with abundant streams and rivers that may exhibit
changing characteristics as sea levels, precipitation activity,
and other factors relating to our changing climate develop.
As FEMA moves forward, it needs to find ways for the new
flood map to recognize the need for growth and extend
protection to vulnerable communities in order to prevent the
blessing of our water resources from becoming a curse.
I thank the Committee and the Chair for examining this
issue and look forward to working with my colleagues, FEMA, and
the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that FEMA has updated the
National Floodplain Map as responsible, effective, and in the
national interest. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Graves, for convening this hearing. Since coming to Congress,
flood protection has been one of my top priorities.
My district sits at the confluence of two great rivers.
Sacramento is considered to have the highest flood risk of any
major metropolitan city in the United States. More than 440,000
people, 110,000 structures, the capital of the State of
California, and up to $58 billion are at risk.
Yet, my district has truly been a positive poster child in
its efforts to bolster our flood control system since our near-
catastrophic flood in 1986. We have investigated our levees,
planned our projects, assessed ourselves millions of dollars,
pushed our State to be a full partner, and begun to build
projects that would get us to a greater than 200 year level of
protection. In fact, our latest assessment commits over $400
million of local dollars to this effort. We are fully committed
to flood protection.
I am very proud of the flood control work we have
accomplished. We know we still have a long way to go, but what
we don't need at this point is to have the rug pulled from
under us. That leads me to why we are here today: to discuss
where our national flood control policy is and where it is
headed.
Specifically, I would like to discuss what the Corps of
Engineers has proposed to use as its new standard for levees,
as written about in the Draft Engineers' Technical Letter first
published or released in 2007.
I think we can all agree that it is important to set robust
standards when it comes to public safety. I am concerned,
though, with the Corps proposed levee standard. Not because I
don't want greater public safety for everyone who lives in the
floodplain, but because we may not be addressing our biggest
problem when it comes to flooding. This new standard creates a
goal for us that is so far off the chart it is unobtainable. We
must maintain the trust of our local communities, communities
that are investing their hard-earned dollars, their time, and
their future goals. We cannot put the brass ring out of reach.
I understand that the historical data of a floodplain is
not enough. In order to compute a watershed's flood frequency
analysis to estimate the risk it faces, you must also use
probabilities. And depending on what probability theory you
use, a watershed could have greatly different flood threats. So
if you are proposing a change to methodology being used for
levee standards nationwide, we must be extremely careful to get
it right.
The problem I see is that we are setting the bar for
communities in the floodplain and leaving it up to them to best
figure out how to mitigate for that risk. I am not a flood
engineer, but I understand that the Corps is proposing to use a
method of analysis often referred to as a Monte Carlo
simulation. It may just be a name, but any method with a label
like that needs to be greatly scrutinized.
I am also concerned that by using this new standard we may,
in actuality, be holding communities to different standards.
The Midwest communities that contend with the wide and massive
Mississippi River have very different watersheds than in the
West; their levees are set back, their floodplains are much
larger, they often have days of warning when a flood is coming.
In Sacramento's watershed, we have a Sierra snow pack that can
melt quickly and, in some cases, give floodplain residents only
a couple hours warning of a flood. Our levees are a result of
the gold rush and are built immediately adjacent to the river.
And then we have the warm coast that can make our weather
patterns change rapidly. So I am concerned that a universal
approach will not recognize these very significant regional
differences.
If getting communities the highest level of protection in
the quickest time possible is our goal, we also need to
localize some of this policy. Specifically, the 408 permit
process. By allowing the local core districts to approach 408
permits so that work can be done quickly to upgrade levees, a
commitment to public safety will also be demonstrated.
We need to get Federal flood control policy right because
communities such as mine are paying a huge price. I know FEMA'S
goal in remapping is to make communities safe. We can all agree
that public safety is the number one priority. But unless we
accurately estimate the threat, our communities will pay huge
economic consequences without getting additional safety. Also,
I worry about people on fixed incomes and their ability to meet
flood insurance requirements. Even if the annual payment could
be broken up in two installments, it would be much easier. My
point is we need flexibility and we need to get it right.
The good news is that we know how to fix our flood
protection problems and make the city safer, from strengthening
our levees to the Joint Federal Project at Folsom Dam.
I don't want all good work we are doing to be wasted. We
must have obtainable standards, standards that recognize
regional differences in flood protection and floodplain
analysis. Public safety needs to take precedence across the
Country and new standards must allow communities to actually
achieve measures that will allow them to be safe.
I want to thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to be here
and looking into this important issue. I thank you very much.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui.
Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Graves and Members of the Subcommittee. I certainly appreciate
the opportunity to come here and testify on this very important
hearing, I believe, on FEMA'S flood mapping program, and
actually for many of the same reasons that other areas of the
Country are expressing concern. This issue has also impacted my
constituents in a very negative, I think, and unfair, unjust
way.
FEMA, of course, is currently doing what the Congress has
directed them to do, and that is to update and modernize the
flood maps across the entire Nation. We all recognize that with
new technology we can and we should update the maps to reflect
our very best science and to convert existing outdated maps
into user-friendly digital format which will account for
property development and growth over the past several decades,
as well as changes that we find in the topography. And I want
to make it clear that I absolutely do support this very
important work.
However, property owners in the Great Lakes area are being
treated very unfairly by these new maps, which have taken
effect in my district, actually, in the past several years. The
net impact is that we can show how these property owners all
throughout the Great Lakes Basin, actually, whose properties
very rarely flood, nor have the potential to flood, are being
treated unfairly. In fact, they are being abused by the
National Flood Insurance Program. My constituents are paying
very, very high flood insurance premiums, and yet we very
rarely receive claims.
Let me just give you an example of the disparity that I am
trying to address. In regards to FEMA'S proposal for remapping
in the Great Lakes region, they are basing raising the base
flood elevation an additional 14 inches, they say, FEMA says,
to accurately reflect the risk of flooding. This is predicated,
however, on data from 1988, which was two years after the
highest lake levels ever recorded in the Great Lakes.
In Lake St. Clair alone, which is a small lake between Lake
Huron and Lake Erie, the lake levels have dropped over three
feet since then and are now five and a half feet below the
current base flood elevation. In fact, over the past 20 years,
the lakes' average have dropped 11 times and, most importantly,
if you really want to look at historic averages, the lake level
has only changed an average depth of about six inches a year.
In spite of all of this, FEMA'S new base flood elevation is now
six and a half feet above the current lake level.
While FEMA has gone about implementing these new maps, the
International Joint Commission, also known as the IJC, which is
an independent binational organization established to help
prevent and resolve disputes relating to the Great Lakes, has
undertaken a five year study examining issues that affect water
levels on the Upper Great Lakes. This is going to be the most
comprehensive and advanced lake level study ever completed.
While certainly we can all agree that using sound science
in very important, in this instance, when hundreds of millions
of dollars are going to be assessed against property owners,
the most prudent course of action, I believe, is to wait until
the IJC has an opportunity to complete this study. In fact, let
me mention that another Subcommittee of the T&I Committee, the
Water Resources, is going to be holding a field hearing in
several weeks in Green Bay to study the low lake levels in the
Great Lakes.
However, my constituents currently are paying much higher
premiums for an insurance plan that they will likely never ever
file a claim on. And the practical impact of these new maps on
my constituents has been to simply raise their flood insurance
premiums, costing them literally millions of dollars, again, at
a time when the lake levels are at a historical all-time low.
This means that they are not going to be making claims, but
they will be subsidizing other parts of the Country, because
what is happening is that many States and their property
owners, with little risk of flooding, who have experienced
little or no flooding, are funding the National Flood Insurance
Program at very, very high rates.
Between 1978, the year the National Flood Insurance Program
began, and 2002, there were 10 States that received more in
claims than what they paid in policies, in fact, over $1.5
billion more, and the average premium for policyholders in
those States was $223. Michigan, on the other hand, paid almost
$120 million more into the program than it received back in
claims, and yet the average premium for people in Michigan was
$257. This is a very common element throughout the Great Lakes
States: higher premiums and lower claims than the States who,
year after year, are taking advantage of the floor insurance
program.
And I believe that what is going on is that Michigan and
other States are sort of being forced to subsidize those who
live in other States that have repeated floods, and, really, if
this is what we are going to do as a Nation, we should call it
what it is, I think, because we are always going to step up as
a Congress and help areas that are having natural disasters.
Then we should have a national catastrophic fund, as opposed to
what we have right now, where you have some States subsidizing
others. In fact, if the situation continues as it is, it is my
intention to contact our governor and our insurance
commissioner and suggest that Michigan should opt out of the
National Flood Insurance Program and actually self-insure.
And one thing I will say, in Michigan, we actually look
down at the water; we do not look up at the water. Let me just
close by giving you one experience of one county in my
district, St. Clair County. This is a small county. They have
actually subsidized this program to the tune of $8.5 million.
So you can interpolate that across the entire State. At the
same time, this is a county that has about a 15 percent
unemployment rate at this current time. So here we are with all
of these higher flood insurance premiums that is happening.
But I really appreciate the Committee allowing me to
testify on this. I certainly look forward to continuing to work
with all of my colleagues to bring both fairness and
reasonableness, as well, back to the National Flood Insurance
Program. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mrs. Miller.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Ms. Norton, Mr. Graves for your
leadership and holding this very important hearing on the
National Flood Plain Remapping process.
I believe as strongly as anyone that FEMA flood maps should
be modernized and accurate. However, communities in my district
have been exposed to a confusing and unclear process that has
failed to address their questions and concerns in a clear and
consistent manner. Also, they have been subjected to a
timetable for compliance that seems both arbitrary and
unrealistic, given the circumstances.
These failures are not for a lack of effort or
communications from the dedicated folks at the relevant Federal
agencies. Rather, the process is problematic because our
communities are traveling through uncharted territory as they
navigate this process. While there are several aspects of this
process that are challenging for our communities, I will focus
my brief remarks on just one relevant issue: the assessment of
flood protection provided by levees and how levees are
certified for inclusion on the modernized FEMA flood maps.
Let me provide you one example of such a challenge from my
congressional district. Crawford County and the City of Van
Buren own and maintain a 23 mile-long levee on the Arkansas
River.
When the map modernization process began for Crawford
County, the County and the City of Van Buren were told by FEMA
that one of their options was to work with the Corps of
Engineers to have their levee certified. As a result, Crawford
County and the City of Van Buren have been proactive in
formally enlisting the assistance of the Corps of Engineers.
However, challenges and barriers have been encountered that
were not anticipated when FEMA advised the County and the City
to work with the Corps.
Specifically, as the Corps has looked for legal
authorization to perform levee certification work, they have
encountered several hurdles that will most likely delay
assistance, and probably prevent assistance. For example, in
2000, Congress enacted the Thomas Amendment, which permits the
Corps to provide commercially available engineering services
only if these are ``not reasonable and quickly available
through ordinary business channels'' and if the Corps is
``uniquely equipped to perform such services.''
As a strong proponent of the private sector, I support the
Thomas Amendment, but I believe the Corps should take into
consideration, in this specific instance, whether the private
sector is willing and able to take on the liability that could
be involved in levee certification at a cost that levee owners,
such as my constituent communities, can afford.
Now, the City of Van Buren and Crawford County are facing
an April 2009 FEMA-imposed deadline to complete their levee
certification work, or else the citizens and businesses,
including the local industrial park, will face mandatory
increased flood insurance costs. Even if the Corps can find
legal justification to do the certification work, the
evaluation would take five to six months. Also, any
deficiencies with the levee would have to be addressed before
certification. Deficiencies could result in the need to
generate significant pay for the levee modification, including
engineering, design, and construction costs, which nobody is
disputing; that is something that needs to be done.
In short, it is highly unlikely that the April 2009 FEMA
deadline will be achievable, despite the best efforts of my
communities, who have been very proactive to try and get ahead
of this thing to work with our Federal agencies in a good faith
manner. As a result, without a change, much of Van Buren's
industrial zone is likely to be reclassified as a high-risk
flood zone and the cost of doing business there will be
dramatically increased next spring.
In conclusion, as the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and the Environment, I hope our Subcommittee
and this Subcommittee can work together with both the Corps of
Engineers and FEMA to produce a solution that will provide
reasonable accommodation for levee owners who are making their
best effort to get their levees certified as quickly as
possible. As an initial step, I would suggest that we engage in
dialogue with FEMA to see whether an extension of the deadline
for provisionally accredited levees, such as those in Crawford
County, would be possible.
Again, you know, I have a situation where I encouraged my
city, my county to get ahead of this, to do the right things.
They contacted the appropriate agencies, were told to move in a
certain direction; now, though, have been given a time line
that is unattainable, and it is ironic because much of the
delay that is going to be caused in reaching that time line
will be from the agencies themselves and their inability to
make a decision and move forward. So it is a problem right now.
Like I say, most of our communities now are struggling with
this, as you hear from the testimony. They need guidance, but
we really do need to look at these very unrealistic timetables.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Graves. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify. As you know, I have
spent many, many hours in the seats where you are in now. This
is my first time here, and I must assure you the view is quite
different from here. You look very imposing at this point.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee today. I have been a strong supporter of the Flood
Insurance Program ever since it began. I think it is a great
idea. But we also have to recognize it has to be properly
administered.
My hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan is facing severe
negative economic impacts as a result of FEMA'S floodplain
remapping initiative. I appreciate the opportunity to explain
this to the Subcommittee precisely what is happening here. I
have a longer written statement that I will submit for the
record.
Grand Rapids is a city of 200,000 people, settled along the
Grand River. It is the second largest city in Michigan and the
center of a metropolitan area of over 1 million people.
The current story of flood mapping in Grand Rapids is one
of bad timing and bureaucratic closed-mindedness, as well as
disagreements between different Federal and State government
agencies. The City was first notified about the FEMA Flood
Plain Remapping initiative in the fall of 2003. This was right
around the same time that the city had just completed a 17-
year, $12.4 million project to improve the flood walls and
embankments along the Grand River. In other words, an urban
area with not a lot of money took it upon themselves to develop
a major flood wall and embankment project. They raised the
flood walls to one foot above the 100-foot elevation, which at
that time was deemed by the Corps of Engineers as adequate,
cost-effective, and contact-sensitive.
Two years later, after that major project was finished,
which really strained the city's resources, in August 2005,
FEMA issued a procedural memo which required that levees be
constructed to three feet above the 100-year flood elevation in
order to be considered during mapping revisions or updates. In
other words, the mammoth project the city had done, following
guidelines of various government agencies, both State and
local, were now two feet below the required level. Apparently,
the FEMA design standards were in place since 1986, but it was
more of a guideline than an enforced rule, and Grand Rapids
City officials were told in July 2006 that their flood walls
and embankments were not adequate, would not be considered in
FEMA'S remapping.
Once the appeals are resolved and a new map is finalized
and published, it will trigger the flood insurance requirements
for those properties located in the newly identified
floodplain. According to a draft report from the local
engineering firm, the new regulations are estimated to impact
over 6,000 parcels in the City of Grand Rapids, with a
potential for a total annual insurance premium of somewhere
between $6 million and $22 million. This is particularly
unwelcome news to a city and a State facing troubling economic
times and high unemployment. Many of the affected properties
are in low-and moderate-income neighborhoods.
I strongly encourage this Subcommittee to work with FEMA on
a more reasonable approach. FEMA should discard its all-or-
nothing policy on levee certification and should take existing
flood protection into consideration when revising its maps and
calculating flood risk, particularly when a city, a modern city
with typical modern city financial problems, has taken it upon
itself to really improve the protection within the city. I
understand that FEMA has a job to do in warning and ensuring
against flood risk.
However, arbitrarily disregarding existing flood
protection, ignoring contact-sensitive design, and requiring
property owners to insure themselves against imaginary flood
risks that will likely never be realized has economic impacts
on communities and property owners that are inappropriate and
unfair. We have heard rough estimates that the new standards
will likely provide protection for a 500-year floodplain, which
is certainly longer than the age of the city.
Finally, I encourage the Subcommittee to ensure that FEMA
is utilizing the best and most appropriate geologic,
hydrologic, and climate data, and the flood modeling available.
It is my understanding that there is some question about the
accuracy and consistency of the modeling used in mapping Kent
County and the City of Grand Rapids. The effective
implementation of a reasonable flood insurance program depends
on accurate science.
Let me add one quick note, and that is even if we simply
raise the current levees by the two feet that are required by
FEMA, that would not meet the standards of FEMA because there
are a number of river crossings and bridges that would not meet
the standard. Reconstructing all the bridges would be a back-
breaking monetary task for the City of Grand Rapids. So I am
asking that you help us develop a better plan that can meet the
actual needs of the floodplain and not break the bank for the
City of Grand Rapids.
I thank you very much for your listening and I hope we can
work this out.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Ehlers.
I must say I found the testimony of the members very
compelling, and you have added to our questions for the next
panel. I think I ought to reserve my questions mostly for them,
but I do have a few questions to ask you.
I noticed that Mr. Hall, Mr. Boozman, and Mrs. Miller, who
spoke about the study, have raised questions that go to the
need for more time. I wonder if your communities have asked for
extensions and whether those extensions have been granted, if
any of you have had that experience.
Mrs. Miller. None of my communities, that I am aware of,
have had any success in getting extensions. The flood maps, as
they have come out, have been implemented and the premiums have
gone up substantially and the people are paying these premiums;
of course, if you have a mortgage. If you don't have a
mortgage, you don't have to pay the premiums.
Ms. Norton. Well, the flood maps are out. The extension
would have to do with your response or your differences with
the map, and I am trying to get some sense of whether or not
there is the kind of communication you might expect between the
Federal agency and the community to work out differences
between communities and FEMA.
Mr. Boozman. In our case, Ms. Norton, the community is very
supportive with going forward with the levee certification
project. They don't dispute that it needs to be done; I don't
dispute that at all either. I think Katrina, the events of the
past have shown us that we need to be doing this work. But the
reality is, you know, for the agencies to require an April 2009
deadline, when we all have experiences with these agencies, it
is difficult for them to make the decisions to allow the
community to go forward with the project, so they are not
getting the answers to the question whether or not the Corps
can provide this or the 2000 law will preclude them. Those
decisions aren't being made. And then if the Corps does get
involved, it will take them several months to figure out what
is going on, and then the construction. So the deadline is
unrealistic by any standard, and we have not had any success in
getting the deadline extended.
Now, part of it is that this truly is uncharted water. I
mean, people are trying to figure out who can do what, who is
responsible for what, and I think that is the biggest. The
agencies have been great to work with and stuff, but we haven't
had any success in extending the deadline.
Ms. Norton. That certainly gives us some reasons to
question the time frame when we speak to the next panel.
I wondered, Ms. Matsui, what you meant when you said that
the new standard was unobtainable.
Ms. Matsui. Madam Chair, we are on the leading edge of some
new standards being imposed upon us, and the Corps has started
to implement, apparently, these new standards which were
apparently in existence using a new probability theory. So,
therefore, for us, we have always been the good citizen, in
essence, and being very proactive. We had been certified for
100-year and we were going for 200-year, and during that
process we discovered that we had some under-seepage, so,
therefore, we moved forward to address this. In the meantime,
with this remapping, we understood now, because of the new
Corps standards, that we are now in the floodplain. So we are
moving forward with our own assessment to advance-fund this
because we need to do this.
But, quite frankly, the question I bring up is that if the
Corps goes forward with these new standards that are imposed
upon us without regional differences, my concern is when are
going to reach the standard we need? Because it seems like they
are changing all the time. So we reach 100-year or 200-year,
then all of a sudden we are not there yet. So that is my
concern here.
Mr. Hall. Madam Chair?
Ms. Norton. Yes, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. May I respond to your first question, which is, I
believe, whether we got a response back from FEMA. In our case,
we did request a 180-day extension of the period and were told,
in a response letter from David Maurstad, the Assistant
Administrator for Mitigation, that FEMA is only allowed by
statute to provide a 90-day appeal period. And they told us, in
fact, that the length of the appeal period is ``regulated by
statute and FEMA is unable to extend it.''
However, they will not issue a county-wide flood insurance
rate map until all communities within the affected area have
provided their results and completed their appeal period. So it
is sort of a de facto extension, but it is haphazard, and I
believe that the Committee might consider making that an option
for FEMA to legally extend that to 180 days.
I should add that in my home county of Dutchess, which I
didn't mention in my formal statement, we have also had
flooding of both the 10-mile river, which the Corps of
Engineers is currently engaged in a feasibility study on
Wappingers Creek, which has had catastrophic flooding that took
out two-plus megawatt--funny that a hydroelectric power plant
would be taken out by too much water, but there was so much
water coming down the Wappingers that it went over the top of
the hydroelectric plant building, and they had to shut down the
generators because they were full of water and silt. And then
in Orange County we had the Wallkill River, the Minnesink
River, and the Delaware River all flooding at the same time,
and right now the Corps is looking at studies in that area,
both at my request and at Congressman Hinchey's request.
Things are changing very rapidly because not only of
increased storm frequency and increased storm strength, which
fit the models of climate change, but also because of
development, which means more impermeable surfaces like parking
lots and roofs and driveways and roads, where there used to be
natural plains, wetlands, and forests which could retain water
and hold it, instead of releasing it immediately into storm
drains and into the storms. And, as a result, what used to be a
normal rain event now seems to produce a flood in our area much
more quickly.
So I thank you again for the work that you do and I
encourage you to, if you can, give FEMA the option of going to
a longer appeal period for communities like those that we all
represent who have to deal with varying factors and with the
costs that is borne by the property taxpayer and by homeowners.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The Subcommittee will look
at this 90-day period. It is a pre-Katrina, obviously,
statutory mandate. There are new areas in the floodplain and
lots of complaints, so we certainly will take a look at that.
I want to quickly move along, but I do want to ask Mrs.
Miller, who has raised a very interesting notion of self-
insurance. Do you believe that would be less expensive if
Michigan or your county did that?
Mrs. Miller. Yes, I absolutely do believe it. I have had
some preliminary discussions. In fact, I have told our State
insurance commissioner, I said, you know, if you had AAA or any
of these regular private insurance companies doing this kind of
thing, reaping all of this additional money based on the claim
rate, you would be up in arms. And this is what is happening to
us as a State, and we can demonstrate it over and over and over
in so many of these various counties, as I have said and others
have said. We have literally thousands and thousands of
property owners that have never had to pay flood insurance. All
of a sudden, with the new maps, they are now in the floodplain
and they are paying these very high premiums.
And this is where I say, as a Nation, a compassionate
Nation, which I believe we are, when we see what happened with
Hurricane Katrina or Rita, or the various hurricanes that
happened in Florida, or we see what happens in Mr. Graves'
State, we see what happens along the Mississippi, as a Nation,
we are never going to say we are not going to help our fellow
Americans. And that is why I say I think we should have a
national catastrophic fund or something so we are able to move
very quickly, rather than what we feel we are literally funding
other States.
Ms. Norton. Well, then somebody would have to fund the
national catastrophic fund, and your taxpayers and mine would
end up putting money in that too.
Mrs. Miller. At least it would be spread out evenly, rather
than States like Michigan, who are paying very high premiums
and not getting the claims back.
Ms. Norton. Well, I am not sure it would be spread out
evenly.
Mrs. Miller. But, yes, I do intend to pursue this with an
idea towards self-insuring.
Ms. Norton. Well, I think FEMA has to take that into
account, that people may be driven to other forms--of course,
there are penalties for that, because one qualifies for
disaster assistance, there is a lot of quid pro quo in here.
But we do need to look at the basis here. This is an insurance
program, people. Insurance programs usually mean that some
people put in--everybody puts in, some get out most. That is
the whole nature of insurance, whether it is health insurance
or flood insurance. Whether or not that fits this post-Katrina
period is very much worthy of real examination. I promise you,
Mrs. Miller, we will look at it, because if a lot of
communities decided to self-insure, then where would----
Mrs. Miller. Where would it go, that is exactly right. And
it does sound like a rather Draconian idea, I understand that,
which I think speaks to how frustrated we all are with looking
at the numbers on this type of thing.
Ms. Norton. I very much appreciate all of this testimony,
and I assure you we will take every bit of it into account not
only in our questions to the next panel, but in statutory
changes and other changes we may request. Thank you very much
for coming, especially for coming early.
Could I ask the next panel to come? Steven Stockton, Deputy
Director of Civil Works, United States Army Corps of Engineers;
David Maurstad, Assistant Administrator, Mitigation
Directorate, FEMA. Could I ask you to stand and be sworn?
Raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you
will give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so
help you, God?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
Ms. Norton. We are going to proceed rapidly. I think we
should begin with FEMA. So I will ask Mr. Maurstad to start,
followed by Mr. Stockton.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID MAURSTAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
MITIGATION DIRECTORATE, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY;
AND STEVEN STOCKTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, UNITED
STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS;
Mr. Maurstad. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking
Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am David
Maurstad, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation and Federal
Insurance Administrator for FEMA. Thank you for allowing me to
update you on three items: FEMA'S progress in meeting
Congressional intent that the Nation's flood map inventory be
updated and modernized; the importance of accurately depicting
levees on community flood maps; and to discuss the status of
flood maps right here in our Nation's capital.
A collaborative effort among FEMA and its partners, the
Flood Map Modernization Initiative uses state of the art
technology to replace paper FIRM panels with modern digital
maps. For the majority of flooding sources, the floodplain
boundary lines are updated and in some areas the flood
elevations are revised. Recognize, though, that the flood maps
only depict the one percent annual chance flood, a flood with a
1 in 100 chance of occurring in any given years. It is a widely
accepted, though minimum, standard.
For FEMA, the modernized maps allow us to establish and
maintain a fair and accurate insurance rating mechanism for the
National Flood Insurance Program. For the over 20,000
communities participating in the NFIP, they are much more. The
digital data and maps serve as a vital foundation for local
flood hazard awareness, land-use planning, floodplain
management, evacuation planning, and reducing vulnerability
from future flood events. FIRMs are used more than 30 million
times a year by builders, lenders, realtors, insurance agents,
community planners, local government officials, homeowners, and
others.
Map Mod's objective--to map 65 percent of the Nation's land
area, where 92 percent of the population lives--is within
reach. FEMA has over 1400 county-wide mapping projects underway
currently in every region of the Nation. In fact, at the close
of fiscal year 2007, we had produced modernized maps for over
60 percent of the Nation's population.
Accurately depicting flood hazards near levees is critical.
FEMA is encountering levees which communities know do not
provide the flood protection once thought, like here in
Washington, D.C. In other areas, we are finding that the level
of protection provided has not been established or is not
known. In cases where we know a levee does not provide
protection against the one percent annual chance flood, we are
compelled to ensure that the public is aware of the threat and
arm them with the facts that will allow them to reduce their
risk. And even in cases where levees meet FEMA'S standard, we
must let them know that a chance exists that a greater flood
could still overtop the levee, which is why we show areas
protected by levees on our maps.
While flood insurance is not required for these areas, FEMA
recommends that property owners consider insurance at a reduced
rate. As we know, we can't be too careful when it comes to
ensuring people are aware and take steps to reduce their risks.
In the last two weeks, in Missouri and Arkansas, levees have
been breached, flooding hundreds of homes and businesses.
Let me conclude by providing a brief update on the status
of the Washington, D.C. Flood Insurance Rate Map. In March of
2007, due to new information provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers that outlined significant levee deficiencies in the
D.C.-Potomac Park system, FEMA notified the District of
Columbia by letter that it issued revised preliminary flood
maps depicting the levee system as not providing adequate flood
protection.
On March 25 of this year, FEMA articulated its continued
commitment to inform citizens, businesses, and institutions
about the flood hazard, while expressing FEMA'S optimism in
working together with the District in outlining a collaborative
solution for this unique situation. At this point, there is
agreement that the D.C.-Potomac Park levee does not meet
current NFIP levee requirements. Nonetheless, we have agreed to
meet with city officials over the next 30 days to discuss how
identified deficiencies might be remedied.
FEMA will continue working with the Corps and our other
Federal, State, and local government partners to communicate
the true and current flood hazard for Americans in their homes
and their places of education, work, worship, and gathering. We
have both a legal and moral responsibility to depict the risk
accurately, and we are committed to upholding our
responsibilities. We understand that our work is not always
popular, but if we choose to look the other way when it comes
to flood hazards, the tools that people need to make informed
decisions will not be available, putting many families and
businesses at risk. FEMA is taking a monumental first step in
reducing the Nation's flood risk. We are providing the data
needed to make sound decisions, but data isn't enough. As a
Nation, we also need a collective will to ensure the right
decisions are made.
Madam Chair, on a side note, I want to observe that the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program is up for reauthorization
this year, and I look forward to working with the Subcommittee
to reauthorize this very valuable mitigation program.
Thank you, and I look forward to responding to any
questions or comments.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Maurstad.
Mr. Stockton of the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Stockton. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking
Member Graves and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I
am Steve Stockton, Deputy Director of Civil Works of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. With your permission, I would like to
make a short statement and submit a complete written statement
for the record.
The Corps of Engineers has served our Nation since its
birth. We have partnered with local and State governments since
1917 on public safety projects to reduce the damaging and
sometimes catastrophic effects of flooding. These projects,
primarily designed and built by the Federal Government, are
then transferred to the non-Federal sponsor for ongoing
maintenance and operation. The Corps of Engineers shares with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency the expertise and
mandate to address the Nation's vulnerabilities to flooding.
However, responsibility for managing the Nation's flood risks
is also shared among Federal, State, and local governments,
private citizens, and enterprises such as banks, insurance
companies, and developers.
The Corps and FEMA have programs to assist States and
communities to promote sound flood risk management. However, a
critical element of successful flood risk management is land
use. Authority to determine how land is used within floodplains
and to enforce flood-wise requirements is the responsibility
primarily of State and local government.
FEMA has embarked on a Map Modernization Program to update
and improve the Nation's flood insurance rate maps. In some
instances, the Corps is being asked to conduct or support levee
certifications for these maps. Certification is a technical
finding for the National Flood Insurance Program that there is
reasonable certainty that a levee will contain a flood within a
one percent annual chance of occurring. This finding is only
for flood insurance purposes and should not be interpreted that
the public living behind the levee is safe from all flooding.
While the Corps does not have authority that specifically
addresses levee certification for National Flood Insurance
Program purposes, it has authorities to perform certifications,
when requested, on levees that the Corps operates and
maintains; levees that are part of an ongoing project or study;
levees designed and built by the Corps but operated by a local,
non-Federal sponsor; levees in the Corps Rehabilitation and
Inspection Program; and levees constructed by other Federal
agencies. Except for levees owned and operated by the Corps,
funding is the responsibility of the entity desiring
certification.
Finally, the Corps is pursing effective combinations of
tools to ensure a safe and informed public. Our intent is to
educate citizens about their risks so that they can become
responsible for their safety by knowing what actions to take to
lower those risks.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the Corps roles and responsibilities in FEMA'S
remapping program and our broader mission of assisting in the
reduction of flood risk for the Nation. I will be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you both for that testimony. Could I ask
how we got to the one percent risk, the 100-year threshold? Was
that the threshold before in prior mapping?
Mr. Maurstad. Yes, Madam Chair. Actually, the one percent
standard, I believe, has been in place since the early 1970s,
very near to the inception of the program that started in 1968,
and it was at that time and has since been reviewed and
discussed at quite some length as to what the minimum Federal
standard ought to be. So it goes back literally to the start of
the program, has been looked at at Congress's request a couple
of different times. Most recently, the Association of
Floodplain Managers Foundation held a symposium on whether or
not the one percent annual chance was still relevant and
received comments from experts in the field across all
disciplines. That was accomplished about two years ago. They
produced a lengthy document summarizing their findings, and you
have a panelist in your next panel from ASFPM that can better
articulate this. I believe the finding of that summary was that
it was still the most appropriate standard, although it may be
time to look at it again.
Ms. Norton. Do you think that there should be a universal
standard, that you should have the same standard throughout the
Nation, the same one percent standard throughout the Nation?
You heard Members perhaps speak about communities that have
never seen a flood. You heard testimony about how--perhaps
because of climate change, who knows--there has been some
lowering of the water level. And, yet, throughout the Country
you have the same standard. How do you justify that?
Mr. Maurstad. I do believe there does need to be a
standard, and it needs to be uniform across the Country because
the standard is that in a particular area of the Country there
is a one percent chance every year that a flood could happen
there. There certainly are going to be areas in the short
period, just the 40 years----
Ms. Norton. Yes, a flood, but a flood of the kind that
requires the kinds of changes that communities are now being
required to make? Sure, there will be a flood.
Mr. Maurstad. Ma'am, I do believe that there does need to
be a minimum Federal standard, and I think that is part of the
difficulty as we communicate with communities and the public,
to get them to understand that the Federal standard is a
minimum standard. We have events every year that are less than
our minimum standard that cause significant damage. It is not a
either-or circumstance. People that are right outside the
special flood hazard area, the highest risk area of our
Country, have one-third of the losses in the national flood
program every year. So you can see that the minimum standard is
just that.
We have a program in the National Flood Insurance Program,
the Community Rating System, where we encourage communities to
take actions beyond the minimum Federal standards. As of May
1st, there will be 1089 communities that choose voluntarily to
do so. They receive discounts on their flood insurance premium
for accepting that additional responsibility, which affects
about two-thirds of our policyholders. So I think we get people
to understand that this is a minimum standard, there are going
to be events every year that exceed this minimum standard, and
we need to prepare for those also.
Ms. Norton. There have been complaints, for example, that
communities make changes. There were complaints about a $17
million change invested in levees; now they don't meet the
standards, they can't be grandfathered in any way. How would
you deal with a community that just finished work of that kind?
Mr. Maurstad. The National Flood Insurance Program is a
program that depends upon its partnerships. The over 20,000
communities that participate in the program do so voluntarily
because of the benefits that they believe they receive from
joining the Program: the floodplain management requirements
that they adopt at the local level in their ordinances, the
availability of insurance, making their communities stronger
and safer. It is those partnerships that really make the
Program successful. Whenever we are doing a remapping, as we
have been doing very vigorously as a result of the Map Mod
initiative that was started in 2004, we reach out through our
regional offices with the communities and work with them as we
go through the mapping process.
Ms. Norton. I am asking a very specific question. I have
given you a hypothetical. I would like an answer to my
hypothetical.
Mr. Maurstad. Okay.
Ms. Norton. Somebody just finishes putting in $17 million
worth of work.
Mr. Maurstad. The regulation----
Ms. Norton. Can that be taken into consideration or not?
Mr. Maurstad. Very specific answer to your question. The
regulation since 1986 has required three foot of freeboard for
levees. Since 1986, not one foot, three foot.
Ms. Norton. Part of what you are meeting when people
complain to you are statutory requirements. Why haven't you
asked for more flexibility if more flexibility is needed? Is 90
days sufficient? Do you need changes in the statute? Are there
other kinds of flexibility that Congress could give you so that
you could work in better partnership with local communities?
Mr. Maurstad. We are always willing to work with the
Subcommittee on looking at potential----
Ms. Norton. Well, I am asking you specifically. You have
heard the time frame discussion.
Mr. Maurstad. We have got over 1400, as the map over here
depicts, 1400 ongoing flood studies. In most cases, the current
statutory requirements and the process that we use go along
without a hitch. We certainly have circumstances where there
are unique situations with communities, and we do our best in
working with the communities to work with them----
Ms. Norton. If somebody needs more than 90 days, what would
you do?
Mr. Maurstad. We can always revise the maps, first of all.
The 90 days starts the statutorily required comment period. At
the end of that, there is another six-month appeal and adoption
process at the community level. And once the community adopts
the final maps, the maps can always be revised through a Letter
of Map Condition or a Letter of Map Revision. So the maps can
be revised when new and better data is available or, in the
case of levees, where projects start and are completed.
Ms. Norton. So you don't believe you need any more
flexibility. You think you have all the flexibility and you do
not see the time frames, for example, as a particular problem?
I just need these answers. Because if you need changes, then I
don't know why you wouldn't ask for them so that you would have
a better relationship--otherwise, we are going to have people
coming to the appropriators, we are going to have people coming
to Congress saying my community just can't do this within that
time frame or they want this or that ad-hoc change included for
them.
We are trying to avoid that, and if we can do so, then we
will do so. We just went through a period when we had a post-
Katrina, where we gave FEMA more flexibility than it had under
the statute. I am simply trying to find, as part of our
oversight, whether or not the statute is 100 percent exactly as
you would have it with respect to your ability to communicate
in time, get feedback, get the additional time that communities
need. You think it is okay?
Mr. Maurstad. I believe it is.
Ms. Norton. Okay. You heard one Member, Representative
Miller, testify about the unfairness she perceives to property
owners, so much so she said they never get a flood, or so
seldom, that she is going to recommend, if she is not able to
do something about it, self-insurance. What is your answer to
that?
Mr. Maurstad. A couple of points I would make, and I think
that you, quite frankly, hit the nail on the head in that we
are talking--we can't predict when an event is going to happen
to us. The maps attempt to provide information within a realm
of probability. Quite frankly, I think that the communities in
any State already can self-insure; they can already opt out.
Ms. Norton. Of course they can.
Mr. Maurstad. Sure.
Ms. Norton. What is the effect of self-insuring, one, on
the program and, two, on the eligibility for disaster
assistance, et cetera?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, exactly, they would not be eligible for
disaster assistance and the citizens in those communities would
not be eligible for flood insurance through the program. There
are consequences, of course.
Ms. Norton. And you regard the program as quite adequately
funded now through this insurance mechanism, I take it?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, the program is adequately funded, as
all Federal Government programs are adequately funded.
Ms. Norton. Is that the only way in which it is
adequately--you have never had problems?
Mr. Maurstad. The program is currently $17.3 billion in
debt. We had, through Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, paid
out more in claims in those three events than the program had
paid out in the first 38 years of its existence. So a
catastrophic----
Ms. Norton. So it is because of Katrina that you are in
debt, or was it----
Mr. Maurstad. Yes.
Ms. Norton. It is Katrina that did it?
Mr. Maurstad. From 1986 until 2004, the program was self-
sufficient from the policyholder premiums, while providing $1.3
billion of benefit in avoided losses every year.
Ms. Norton. Has there been any increase in premiums or the
like?
Mr. Maurstad. Not specifically because of Katrina. We have
been increasing the premiums to the program because 75 percent
of the policies are risk-based, actuarially-based premiums.
Twenty-five percent of the policies are discounted for those
people that had properties that were mapped into the special
flood hazard area, so Congress said provide them discounts. So
we have had--and because of the fiscal financial need to make
sure that we have funds for catastrophic years, we have been
increasing the premiums over the course of the last five years.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I am going to go to the
Ranking Member at this point.
Mr. Graves. Is there any help for small communities--and I
am particularly thinking about the unincorporated communities--
for certification? Is there any Federal assistance for those
communities?
Mr. Maurstad. There is not from FEMA.
Mr. Stockton. Nor from the Corps, sir.
Mr. Graves. What are those small communities--some of those
communities, I imagine, it is going to be pretty tough, or it
is pretty tough. And I am thinking about those ones that--and
my district is full of them in floodplains.
Mr. Maurstad. Well, that is part of the reason why we
issued the procedure memo that allowed for those communities
where the chief executive officer will sign that they believe
that the levee continues to provide the one percent annual
chance protection, that we provide them two years to provide us
with the necessary information to be able to accredit that
levee on their maps, one of the reasons why. So at least they
had some period of time, as the owners of the levees and those
that benefit from the levees, to be able to put together the
resources to provide that necessary documentation.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Arcuri.
Mr. Arcuri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. I have two
questions, one very specific to the counties in my
congressional district and one more general with respect to the
State of New York. FEMA has informed the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation that fiscal year 2008
flood map modernization funds will be used for Chemung,
Schenectady, Oneida, and Oswego Counties, although they have
also informed the DEC that no fiscal year 2008 dollars will be
used to update detailed map studies only to overlay the old
detail studies on new topographical layer. Updated maps are
critically important to ensuring that the development can be
placed appropriately, as well to ensuring that people who live
in the real flood-prone areas have adequate insurance.
Isn't this contrary to the mission stated in the map
modernization mid-course adjustment, of producing new updated
maps for communities with greater population, greater flood
risk, and greater potential flood growth development? Why would
you merely do an overlay for counties like Oneida and
Schenectady that have those characteristics which you say
warrant updated mapping?
Mr. Maurstad. If you would excuse me to provide a general
answer to you, and then I will provide a more specific answer
for the record.
Mr. Arcuri. That would be great, yes.
Mr. Maurstad. I believe we are being consistent with the
mid-course adjustment, but it still boils down to what
resources that we have available and working through the
regions and the States, where they identify the highest risk
areas are, and that is, as funds are available, where new
engineering studies are done. Now, we, through the President's
2009 budget, are requesting an additional $248 million for
ongoing mapping activities with an emphasis on new engineering
studies in high risk areas, so we are hopeful to be able to get
to more of those areas that you mentioned.
Mr. Arcuri. Well, I can understand that, but, as I
understand it, for instance, sections of the Adirondack
Mountains in New York State, where population density is very
low, have obviously been left out of that, and that is
understandable; the population is low. But in the two counties
that I referred to, there is flooding and the population
density is high. Shouldn't they be given a higher priority?
Mr. Maurstad. Again, without knowing the specifics, I would
say yes. But I would also say that these decisions have been
made with the State involved in where the dollars that can be
allocated for that area need to be spent. So I would have to go
back, get the specifics, see what the recommendations were from
the State and how that fit in to our national effort.
[Information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.007
Mr. Arcuri. I would appreciate that. One more question.
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, New York State had the second
highest flood losses in the Nation under the National Flood
Insurance Program. This was not because New York experienced
floods of overwhelming magnitude but, rather, the sheer
frequency with which it suffered from declared disasters. I
look at the map that I have here, the progress of mapping
activities, and New York has, it seems, a significant number of
counties which are not funded.
And especially when you look in the southern part of New
York State that neighbors Pennsylvania, where all of the
counties seem to be funded, and yet the neighboring counties
right across the border are not funded; and that seems to be
more the rule than the exception in New York. What is it that
goes into the evaluation in terms of different--I see the same
thing happens with respect to Northwestern Ohio and Southern
Michigan and South Carolina and Georgia.
Mr. Maurstad. Well, as I indicated, we have put forward
from the beginning of the map modernization the multi-year
flood hazard identification plan. It has been out, transparent,
visible; everybody has had it. But in the development of that,
we used risk, we used stakeholder input from the local and the
State level, we looked at, in some cases, communities that had
data to contribute to the process. So we have developed a
specific sequencing and funding process through the five years
of map modernization.
So the risk, of course, is based on flood claims by
district, which may be different than the losses that you are
talking about if a lot of the events that you had were not
insured, because the focus and the direction from Congress has
been to look at the impacts to the National Flood Insurance
Fund and the National Flood Insurance Program, which may be
slightly different from the criteria that you mentioned. But it
is still risk-based with local and State stakeholder input.
Mr. Arcuri. So do I have to tell my local communities that
they need to get engaged, to be more proactive in terms of
getting the message out of what their needs are?
Mr. Maurstad. I think that is always good advice. But I
also think that, as I go around the Country and look at
disasters, one of the things that always strikes me is the
number of folks that have been damaged by a flood event that
did not have flood insurance. Clearly, people that have flood
insurance after events, whether they are presidentially
declared disasters or whether they are after a lot of the
flooding events that never rise to that level, the people that
have a flood insurance policy are those that recover faster and
get back on their feet better. So I continue to try to
encourage people, if they are in the high-risk area, if they
are in the low-to moderate-risk area, to have a flood insurance
policy.
Mr. Arcuri. Forgive me, this is my last question. I don't
mean to be argumentative, but it just seems odd to me. I don't
understand the fact that New York has so little of its counties
that are funded and yet it has such a high incidence of
flooding.
Mr. Maurstad. Again, without knowing the specifics, one
aspect that could allude to that is the areas that were funded
under the program were more expensive to do, so there were
fewer studies that could be done, so the geographic area that
could not be reached. So it could depend upon the types of
studies that were done in those areas that were funded in New
York, and I would have to get the specifics on that.
Mr. Arcuri. If you could furnish me with that, I would
appreciate that very much.
Mr. Maurstad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Arcuri. Thank you.
No more questions, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Arcuri.
Mr. Dent?
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here today. Just a quick question about
this map that has been presented and the legend at the bottom
right. I live in Eastern Pennsylvania, Lehigh Valley,
Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton area. We are the green area
affected county. What is the difference between the green and I
guess that reddish and the funded county areas? What does that
mean? Affected would be affected county versus the preliminary
county versus funded county, I guess is really the question.
Mr. Maurstad. Right. The affected county means that those
counties have final maps adopted and in place from the map
modernization initiative.
Mr. Dent. But they are not funded.
Mr. Maurstad. No, they are funded. They are completed.
Mr. Dent. Okay. Okay, that is what that means, is
completed.
Mr. Maurstad. Yes.
Mr. Dent. All right, I just wanted to be clear about that
point. And then preliminary county means what?
Mr. Maurstad. Preliminary counties mean that we have gone
through the probably year to year and a half scoping process,
development of the new maps, and have provided those maps to
the local communities in preliminary form that starts the 90-
day process, starts the appeal and adoption process.
Mr. Dent. Okay. And then funded county means?
Mr. Maurstad. Funded county means that those counties have
received funds to start that we have allocated----
Mr. Dent. To begin the process.
Mr. Maurstad. To ultimately have a final effective map.
Mr. Dent. Okay. All right. Now, I want to get to the issue
of my area of Eastern Pennsylvania. As you know, Pennsylvania
is a very flood-prone State. We probably have more miles of
running water than any of the lower 48 States. So we have
enormous flood issues.
In my region, we have had three major events in the last
three and a half, four years; Hurricane Ivan and two other
major events. We, in my region, have put together a regional
comprehensive flood mitigation program which has been very
helpful. In fact, this year, in the omnibus appropriations
bill, we did get some earmark funding, actually, to deal with
some of our highest flooding areas, and we are basically
working through FEMA to fund what we consider to be six of our
high priorities.
Are you at FEMA giving greater consideration to communities
like mine in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania that do have
regional flood mitigation plans, that they have a lot of
projects that area ready to go, have been comprehensively done
by planning commissions, we are well ahead of the game? Do you
give priority consideration for funding for those types of
applications or proposals versus some other communities that
may not be as well advanced in terms of their planning?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
required all local communities to have local mitigation plans,
so four years ago we----
Mr. Dent. Ours aren't just local, they are regional; they
are multi-jurisdictional.
Mr. Maurstad. I understand. Many communities do it on a
multi-jurisdictional basis to meet that requirement. We have
over 16,000 communities that now have in place the required
mitigation plans. The Predisaster Mitigation Grant Program is a
competitive program; it is based on technical engineering and
feasibility of the projects, very strict grants management
competitive requirements. Having a plan in place, that gets you
into the game but doesn't necessarily provide you with
additional points, so to speak, in the competition. And, of
course, in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program there aren't
requirements other than to have the local plan in place to be
eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.
Mr. Dent. So based on this legend, then, you really want to
be a green area, essentially; you want to be affected county,
right, in terms of your process?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, this is indicating those counties that
have effective maps, which is different from having local
mitigation plans. So this really doesn't depict what you are
talking about.
Mr. Dent. Okay. All right, that is why I was a little
confused with that point. Okay, thank you.
The other issue I have, too, being, again, from Eastern
Pennsylvania, we are a partner in the Delaware River Basin
Commission. That is a multi-State entity: Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. And one issue that I
continue to hear--and perhaps this is more a question for FEMA;
it would be a better question, I guess, to the DRBC, who is not
here, but the question I hear most regularly is this: my
residents will tell me that floods are occurring in part in
Eastern Pennsylvania because of the reservoirs up in New York
being at too high capacity, and that those reservoirs need to
be managed differently; that is, not be at 100 percent or over
100 percent capacity, but some other number less than 100
percent; I don't know if it is 80 or 90 percent, but some other
number.
The feeling is that when those fill up that contributes to
flooding downstream and it is a source. I realize there are lot
of experts and hydrologists and others who have to examine this
issue and have some very different opinions, that we must deal
with this issue from a science-based criteria or perspective.
So I would just be curious to hear your thoughts,
particularly FEMA'S thoughts--or even the Corps, it doesn't
matter--how you feel we should be talking to our constituents
about that very sensitive issue? Because they are convinced the
issue is the reservoirs are at too high capacity and that is
what is driving flooding on the Delaware.
Mr. Maurstad. Well, from FEMA'S National Flood Insurance
Perspective, that is a jurisdictional issue. What we are
talking about today is mapping the risk. The risk is there, and
what we have been charged to do is go out and determine what
that risk is and then communicate it to local governments and
to the public so they can take necessary actions as a result of
that. So what you are talking about really falls outside the
scope of my area of responsibilities.
Mr. Dent. Corps?
Mr. Stockton. As this Nation developed, a lot of projects
were built, dams and reservoirs, some Federal, non-Federal,
authorized for specific purposes, and we do have authorities to
go in and re-evaluate basins or systems to adjust them to more
contemporary needs. So the authorities exist. It would take
funding to do one of these studies to help re-evaluate exactly
how the system might be operated for more optimal contemporary
purposes.
Mr. Dent. One other thing, too. In my community, too, we
are looking at developing some interesting flood warning
systems and actually trying to get some of these funded. I know
if you have any types of perspectives on these types of
programs, but it has gotten to that point, where I live,
particularly along the Delaware, that, with the number of
events we have been having in recent years--we didn't have any
major events since 1955, and then over the past three, four
years we have had three major events. So now there is very
serious talk of flood warning systems, of course, other
alternative plans to help elevate houses or remove people from
areas of high risk. So I would just be curious to hear your
comments and perspective on these flood warning systems at
FEMA.
Mr. Maurstad. Well, I think they have proved to be very
valuable and they are, I think, in many areas of the Country
very necessary preparedness activity that needs to be looked at
so that communities can be prepared for and know how they are
going to respond when an event is at their doorstep.
Mr. Dent. Okay, that is my final question. I guess my only
comment would be I just encourage FEMA to stay engaged with the
Delaware River Basin Commission as we talk about flood
mitigation and help them, because obviously anything we can do
to prevent these floods or mitigate these flood events is
important to you because you are the ones who are asked to
respond after the fact.
So to the extent that you can help shed some light on the
issue of where these reservoirs should be in terms of capacity
might be very helpful. And there are a lot of competing
interests, I understand, on the Delaware. New York State is
interested in water for the city, we are trying to manage both
drought and flood at the same time, and I do understand the
complexities of these types of issues, but FEMA'S input with
the Delaware River Basin Commission I think would be very
valuable to helping us better address this difficult situation.
So thank you and I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
Mrs. Capito.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the gentlemen. I represent the State of
West Virginia. We have, as well, a lot of flooding, but it is
more of a flash flood type situation into the hollows because
of our geography. On the map I am curious to know--and maybe
you covered this in your opening statement, and I apologize if
I didn't hear it--when a county begins to map in conjunction
with FEMA, is there a process by which the county can contest
some of the results? Because this actually happened in one or
my counties. What is the process for that?
Mr. Maurstad. I appreciate the question. The answer is yes,
and I go back to one of the comments that I made. I am not sure
if you were present at that time where I said that really the
success of the program depends on its partnerships. So once we
start this process with our partners, those that participate in
the National Flood Insurance Program, we sit down and we have
what is initially called a scoping meeting that starts the
whole process and kind of lays out how things are going to
unfold along the way. While the engineering work is done, if
communities have information to provide, we accept that, we use
that; if they have topographic information, for example. Along
the way we continue to let them know what and where we are at
during the mapping process.
Of course, when you get closer to the more formal
processes, when we provide the preliminary maps, there is that
90-day comment period where communities can provide scientific
or technical disagreements, we will call them, with the maps
that have ben provided to them. Then there is even, during the
six month appeal, an adoption process that they go through.
Certainly, disagreements can happen during that.
But then back again in response to the Chairwoman's
question, at any time that there is better information that
communities can share with FEMA, we want that information, then
we can have a process for updating and improving those maps. We
want the best maps possible for communities.
Mrs. Capito. Right. And I appreciate the good hard work
that you do. And I know you are not in the emergency response
area, but FEMA has done a great job, historically, in our
State, coming in and setting up very quickly in very difficult
situations, and I appreciate that.
Let me ask you another topic that we discussed a lot. It
was called, at one point, ``three strikes and you're out,'' you
know, if you filed your flood insurance and collected three
times. What is the status of that and do you have anything to
say about that?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, we do have and are in the midst right
now of implementing the severe repetitive loss pilot program
that was authorized in the 2004 NFIP reauthorization. It
doesn't really have a ``three strikes and you're out''
provision, but it does have a process that if a valid
mitigation offer is made to a particular property owner and
they turn down that offer, then their insurance premiums can be
increased 50 percent. So it is the first time that the program
has really ever had--we usually work cooperatively with
incentives in the program. This is clearly a disincentive and
is trying to use the stick approach with those that have been
severe repetitive loss policyholders.
Mrs. Capito. In the grand scheme of things, I mean, this is
just an off-the-wall kind of question, but, percentage-wise,
would you say are individuals who are repetitive large loss in
coming to FEMA? I mean, just kind of ball-park. I am curious.
Mr. Maurstad. I think it is around 8,000 of the 5.5 million
policyholders fit into the definition that Congress put in the
Act of severe repetitive loss.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Maurstad. But they cause a large number of policy
losses every year.
Mrs. Capito. Right.
Mr. Maurstad. They are a small number, but they are costly.
Mrs. Capito. They make their voices heard. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask both of you to respond to the
criticism of your methodology in the prior panel and from
complaints from the States. How do you define risk? To what
extent is probability used? Do you use a historical approach
largely? How do we know this is scientific?
Mr. Stockton. Let me take that, Congresswoman. We define
risk as being the probability of an event occurring times the
consequences. So if you have a 1 percent chance of accedence,
that is your probability; and then the consequences have to do
with type of property or lives that you are protecting behind
that levee.
As far as the methodology that we use, both the FEMA method
and the Corps method, the risk analysis method, they are very,
very similar when they go through and the information that they
collect to perform those analyses. The only difference is there
is uncertainty in all the calculations we do; it is based upon
statistics, historical record. There is a lot that we don't
know, but we make the best----
Ms. Norton. Is there a formula that you use?
Mr. Stockton. Absolutely. We use quite complex computer
models to compute this. To determine what the flood profiles
are for different level events, whether they are 100-year
events or 500-year events, we can produce that, but it is based
upon the period of record you have, the type of hydrology you
have, the hydraulics of the channel, and it varies.
So the only difference in the two methodologies, really, is
how you capture all that uncertainty. The FEMA approach just
basically adds three feet of freeboard to capture that
uncertainty; our approach that we use determines what the
probability is, and we look for a 90 percent confidence level
that that flood level will not be exceeded. In some cases that
provides for less than three feet of freeboard; in some
instances that provides for more than three feet of freeboard.
This approach has been recommended by the National
Academies of Science. We have adopted this approach. It is not
new; we have been using it since 1997. We continue to update
our guidance, though, to make it clear, and more relevant as
more models become available. But it is not new, and I think
eventually the Corps and FEMA will have a similar approach.
Ms. Norton. Just a moment. Corps and FEMA use different
approaches about the same subject matter?
Mr. Stockton. There are two alternatives provided for in
the Code of Federal Regulations, and they are fundamentally the
same. The only difference is how we capture that uncertainty.
One is a probabalistic approach, we use the risk analysis; the
other is a deterministic approach where you just add three feet
of freeboard to capture that uncertainty.
Ms. Norton. I am going to have to take your word for it,
but I do note that in the next panel Larry Larson, of the
Association of Floodplain Managers, suggests that you ``re-
establish''--that is interesting--re-establish the Federal
Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. It makes me a
little nervous to hear about differences between FEMA and
Corps. Do you believe it would be good to have this interagency
task force?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Maurstad. First of all, we do allow the Corps of
Engineers method for their projects. We recognize that. We work
with them in partnership, and I would say we started very
vigorously enhancing our partnership in August of 2005 with the
Corps of Engineers and formed an interagency flood risk
management committee where General Riley and myself and our
staffs meet quarterly and are working towards making sure that
we can better serve our customers.
Ms. Norton. So you say there is already, in effect, an
Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, is that
your testimony?
Mr. Maurstad. No, that is not. What I was alluding to and
leading to was the two agencies are now, and have been, working
with developing a better cooperation so that we can better
serve our constituents, and I can----
Ms. Norton. Would you agree with Mr. Stockton that this
would be a good time to re-establish the Federal Interagency
Floodplain Management Task Force?
Mr. Maurstad. We value our partnership with the Association
of State Floodplain Managers and we look to continue to have
discussions with them on pursuing this suggestion.
Ms. Norton. Particularly given the partnership, I would ask
you to pursue that, if at all possible.
Let me quickly ask a series of other questions. We have one
more panel we have to quickly get to. I am going to have to ask
you about costs that are inevitably associated with flood
mapping, particularly in the midst of the worst downturn in the
economy in several years. The point, of course, the
Subcommittee recognizes, is to prevent floods, and the
mitigation you do, the mapping you do, the partnerships you do
all are a part of that process.
Yet, we heard one Member of the Committee talk about the
insurance as a flood tax speak of economic dead zones that had
been created in his community by mapping, about the mapping had
the effect of killing development in community. We know there
is wholesale concern that development in some communities are
going to stop instantly, if it hasn't already stopped because
of economic conditions.
Have you thought how to avoid undue costs as a result of
the flood remapping?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, I think that we certainly look at the
impacts. We are going to have economic cycles, certainly. One
thing that is certain is floods are going to happen every year,
and they are going to remain our number one natural disaster,
and floods in those areas would be far worse than what the
impacts are----
Ms. Norton. Well, for example, the example I gave you
before, the people who had just done, raised to the last level,
and here comes a new level.
Mr. Maurstad. No, I need to correct that. The level was
always three feet, since 1986.
Ms. Norton. They just finished work. Maybe the level isn't
where it should have been. Is there any grandfathering that
takes into account work that has just been done?
Mr. Maurstad. That would be a slippery slope for us to
recognize work that had been done that did not meet our
regulatory standards.
Ms. Norton. There was troubling testimony from Ms. Miller
of Michigan about the lakes dropping 11 times, she testified,
not rising, and yet elevations being required through the
remapping. How would you respond to that criticism?
Mr. Maurstad. In a very general sense, I don't know the
specifics, so I can't comment specifically, but lakes rise and
lakes fall. When I was the regional administrator in Region 8,
North Dakota was one of the States in the region. They have a
lake up there called Devils Lake. Thirty years ago, I believe
that lake was completely dry; now it is at about 48 feet and
has caused considerable flooding since the early 1990s----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Maurstad, I would agree with that, except
the testimony was that it keeps dropping 11 times. I know the
Chair of the Full Committee is concerned about the effect of
climate change on the Great Lakes, so much so that they are
having trouble getting boats in. And I am not suggesting that
you could all of a sudden see the lake come up again, but where
the dropping of water levels has been so consistent over so
many years, you can imagine telling people you have got to
elevate beyond where you were doesn't make much sense to them.
Would there be any kind of communication or negotiation that
would go on in a case like that?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, there is going to be communication,
Madam Chair, and I would say, again, FEMA, we rely on the
engineers, we rely on the Corps of Engineers, we rely on the
private contract engineers to provide us with accurate data
that reflects the one percent annual chance flood risk. That
has to be sound, because ultimately we have to operate under
the premise that it could be legally challenged. So the answer
to your question is, yes, we would communicate, we would look
at situations like this, and if the data was wrong, we would
change it and correct it.
Ms. Norton. All right. I think that the Great Lakes may be
one of those instances where there needs to be perhaps some
realistic understanding of what has happened over the Great
Lakes over now a number of years consistently. The Full
Committee Chairman, I think, will have to have his own meeting
with you to discuss that matter because he is the expert there.
How much noncompliance, for lack of a better word, do you
find with the remapping program? Do people generally get it
done is what I am asking.
Mr. Maurstad. Yes.
Ms. Norton. How about this year, in terms of the protests
this year?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, there is no question that, as we have
gotten into map modernization, one of the benefits, quite
frankly, of map modernization and finally updating the maps
after many years of neglect for funding reasons is because of
all the discussion and communication that is going on
throughout the Country on what their flood risk is. It is more
sensitive in those areas where there are levees that are no
longer providing the protection the people once believed they
had.
So in those areas, yes, we are working through a number of
challenging circumstances. But overall we are meeting our
metrics. When Congress designed Map Mod, it said we will
provide $200 million a year for five years, but it is going to
be performance-based; you are going to have metrics and we are
going to expect you to meet those metrics, and we are on track
to do that. We are very proud of that, in fact.
Ms. Norton. Well, I don't envy the task you have and the
protests you receive. Many of them are inevitable. It is not
the kind of understanding of the program, the quid pro quos,
that are involved that there should be, and I know you are
making every effort at communication. I must say that FEMA was
not quick to come forward after Katrina to ask Congress for
changes to accommodate that special circumstance. I don't
suggest that this is that special circumstance, but I am
suggesting that essentially where the complaints came from were
the areas of the Country.
And the post-Katrina act is not the result of the agency
coming forward and saying we are interpreting this perhaps
conservatively. If you want it interpreted differently, then
perhaps there need to be changes in the statute such as X, Y,
Z. Instead, you had to have Mississippi and Louisiana and
others coming here long after the fact, and they complained
bitterly, bitterly, of FEMA'S procedures, about how it was
keeping development from occurring. They did it by a true
indictment of FEMA.
In light of that experience, I am going to ask you to look
closely at your statute and at your flexibility and at your
procedures to make sure that you have the necessary
flexibility, because I want to assure you this Subcommittee is
prepared to quickly give you added flexibility, if necessary.
I very much appreciate this work is a huge challenge and,
based on the work you have done, I have every reason to believe
you will meet that challenge. Thank you for your testimony.
I am going to ask the next two witnesses to come forward.
We are trying to complete this hearing in about another half
hour. These two witnesses are equally important to this
Subcommittee: Les Sterman, the Executive Director of East-West
Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis, Missouri; and Larry
Larson, the Executive Director of the National Association of
State Floodplain Managers.
I am going to ask Mr. Larson to go first.
Could I ask you to stand and be sworn? Do you swear that
the testimony that you are about to give is truthful, so help
you, God?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
Ms. Norton. Please begin, Mr. Larson.
TESTIMONY OF LARRY A. LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOOD PLAIN MANAGERS; AND LES STERMAN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EAST-WEST GATEWAY COORDINATING COUNCIL, ST.
LOUIS, MISSOURI
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and the Members of
the Committee. I represent the Association of State Floodplain
Managers. We have about 11,000 members nationally, the vast
majority of them working at the local level.
The issue of mapping of flood risk, especially that related
to levees, is critically important to this Nation. We have a
number of unsafe levees in this Nation and a number of high
risk areas that we need to identify. I am going to talk about
just a few areas briefly: the need to accurately map flood risk
and hazards; the issue that levees and mapping and managing
flood risk is a shared responsibility of all levels of
government; and I will talk a bit about the level of protection
issue, the one percent issue that you have raised a number of
times.
FEMA, as they indicated, map flood risks for about 20,000
communities, and the FEMA program uses, as Mr. Maurstad
indicated, the one percent standard to identify that hazard
risk area. It is important for people to recognize that that
one percent standard, or 100-year floodplain, is not a public
safety standard. It is not a standard that says you will be
safe if you use this standard; it says this is the standard
that is used by the National Flood Insurance Program to run an
insurance program that balances those issues that come into
play in the Flood Insurance Program.
Is that a level of public safety standard? No, it is not.
Is it a standard that should be used for structural flood
protection measures, especially in highly urbanized areas with
highly critical facilities such as hospitals and police and
fire stations and the rest? As we saw in New Orleans, no, it is
not adequate. So we need to think about a variable level of
standard. But right now FEMA uses a one percent standard across
the Nation for mapping all flood hazard areas.
I want to also point out that when a new map is issued, the
end result is not always putting people in the floodplain, in
that mapped floodplain; sometimes people come in, sometimes
people go out. Our experience shows that, typically, when new
maps are issued, there is pretty much a balance of those that
come in and go out because you now have a more accurate
depiction of the floodplain. So you always have what some
people consider winners and losers. We don't consider the need
to purchase flood insurance as a loser; it is really an
opportunity. And, quite frankly, in most cases it is a low cost
opportunity.
Showing the flood hazard on the map will not make the
hazard go away if we don't show it on the map, so we need to
make sure that people understand that it is important to show
it on the map. If they want to be able for citizens and
communities to take action, they need to know what the risk is.
Levees and mapping or managing flood hazards are a shared
responsibility; Federal, State, and local. Typically, it is the
local community that asks for a levee. The Federal Government
may have built it for them, but it was their mitigation option
that they chose. With that, they accepted the responsibility,
in most cases, to operate and maintain that levee. If they did
not do that accurately and adequately, they may now find that
the Corps of Engineers comes in and says your levee is not
adequate and can't be certified. If you had been maintaining it
over the years, it probably would be. Those are all things that
need to be considered.
Finding Federal funds to fix levees these days is very
problematic, as you know, with Federal budgets, so coming up
with other options to repair levees, to rehabilitate levees, to
look at options for levees--as they are doing in the case of
Sacramento, perhaps doing setback levees behind the current
levee; building new levees, giving the river some more room--
those are all options that need to be considered. There are
programs that provide technical assistance for communities when
the mapping process occurs and levees are decertified. The
Flood Plain Management Services Program of the Corps of
Engineers is one program to assist those communities that
should be pursued actively.
We find that there are private sector investment firms
interested in funding infrastructure these days. It is a much
safer investment than the stock market at the moment, and
perhaps a little better return than CDs. So there is a keen
interest in hundreds of millions of dollars being available to
help communities in infrastructure improvements, and levees
seems to be one that now is open for that kind of discussion.
I will again--I know you asked about the Floodplain
Management Task Force, the re-issuance and upgrading of the
Executive Order to guide Federal investments and work in
floodplains. Those are all things we support.
With that, I would be glad to answer any questions any of
you might have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Larson.
Mr. Sterman?
Mr. Sterman. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Graves, and
Members of the Committee, my name is Les Sterman. I am
Executive Director of the East-West Gateway Council of
Governments, which is a partnership of local governments in the
St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois metropolitan region.
The St. Louis region is at the confluence of the
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. A large portion of our
region's land area is protected by levees and other flood
control facilities, some of which have been in place since the
1920s. Entire communities owe their existence and prosperity to
these great rivers and the protection from flooding that we
have carefully built over the last 80 years or so. About half a
million people live in the Illinois portion of our region, and
we now know that about 160,000 of them are in imminent economic
and physical peril.
Last August 15th, Congressman Costello called a meeting and
the Corps of Engineers revealed for the first time that they
could not certify that what were formally 500-year levees along
the Mississippi River in Illinois could withstand a 100-year
flood event. This would mean that the entire area known as the
American Bottom would be remapped as a special flood hazard
area.
Like many older industrial cities, St. Louis has struggled
to regain its economic footing in recent years. In Illinois we
are experiencing an economic rebirth. Long-awaited, but now
imminent expansion of industries like U.S. Steel and Conoco-
Phillips, expansions worth literally billions of dollars in
actual construction, is now on hold. New development has simply
stopped dead in the American Bottom.
Perhaps most troubling, the American Bottom is home to some
of the poorest and most physically and economically vulnerable
citizens in our region. For most of them, flood insurance is
not a realistic option at any price, and without flood
insurance they will be unable to get a mortgage, unable to buy
or sell a home, and unable to recover from a catastrophic loss
from a flood.
Let me assure you that we take these actions by FEMA and
the Corps very, very seriously. Since August 15th we have
mobilized our local governments, who are very quickly taking
unprecedented, cooperative steps to rebuild our flood control
systems along the Mississippi River. Legislation will be
considered by the Illinois General Assembly next week to impose
a sales tax in three Illinois counties to raise as much as $180
million for these repairs. Our goal is to rebuild our flood
control systems in five years or less, an enormously
challenging job, but one that simply must be done.
At the same time as we are pulling together to protect our
citizens and our local economy, we are troubled by a number of
serious concerns about how this situation has unfolded and the
future participation of the Federal Government in helping us
rebuild. My written testimony provides some detail, but I would
like to just cover a couple of highlights of those concerns.
While the remapping process has been underway for some
time, the revelation of the levee deficiencies was both sudden
and shocking to local officials in our area. Public officials
want to do the right things to protect the safety and
livelihood of their citizens, but to ask them to fix a $180
million in less than a year, especially one they didn't even
know about, is not reasonable.
The manner in which the remapping process is unfolding
across the Country leads to some irrational and very unfair
outcomes. Our area, for example, is bisected into two FEMA
regions, which are proceeding along different schedules in the
remapping process. The remapping in Missouri is as much as
three years behind that in Illinois. The citizens of Illinois,
who will suffer truly Draconian outcomes from this process,
will look a couple of hundred feet across the Mississippi River
at their neighbors in Missouri, who will suffer no such
outcomes. Congressman Costello sponsored an amendment to the
National Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, H.R.
3121, that rectifies this injustice. The bill did pass the
House and is now pending in the Senate, and we strongly urge
its passage with the Costello amendment included.
We know that we have to work together in a responsible way
to reduce the risks of flooding, without compounding the
problem by putting people and entire industries in immediate
economic jeopardy. We don't ever want to create a situation
where well-intended, but man-made government action is creating
hardship every bit as threatening as the acts of God that we
want to protect against.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. First, let me ask do you
perceive significant, either of you, financial dislocation in
terms of construction or other dislocation that attend the
remapping? I am concerned, for example, Mr. Sterman, that you
said it was stunning, the changes that were needed were sudden,
with Draconian outcomes. Would you elaborate on that, please?
Why was it sudden? These were not apparent, that these changes
would be needed? What was unexpected?
Mr. Sterman. The remapping process was certainly not
unexpected.
Ms. Norton. No.
Mr. Sterman. The local government has been participating in
that for a number of years. What was unexpected was the
decertification of--we have 500-year levees along the
Mississippi River that have historically protected hundreds of
thousands of people and industries. The Corps announced, on
August 15th--and this was evidently a surprise to FEMA as
well--that they could no longer certify those levees to
withstand a 100-year flood. We were not expecting that.
Ms. Norton. And those were 500-year levees?
Mr. Sterman. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Now, do you think Katrina had to do with that?
What in the world led to that?
Mr. Sterman. I don't know that Katrina led to it, per say.
These were noted as ``design deficiencies'' by the Corps of
Engineers, so it is the design process. The Corps' design
process has improved over many years since those levees were
built. They were evidently maintained adequately, but simply no
longer met current standards that the Corps is using. There was
a significant change.
We withstood the flood of 1993, which was a 300-year event.
We did that with the help of what is known as flood fighting.
Folks got out there with sandbags; sand boils came up from
under seepage; and the levees held fairly successfully. Under
the current standard that the Corps is using, at FEMA'S
direction, flood fighting activities like that will no longer
count in assessing the adequacy of the levee. So the levees
need to withstand without human intervention that flood. We
weren't expecting that kind of outcome at that time.
Ms. Norton. Could I ask you on the fact of the use of
sandbags, human beings helping to control floods. Do both of
you consider that that is in keeping with modern flood control,
that it was time to let that go, or do you think that that
causes needless expense?
Mr. Sterman. Well, we think flood fighting is a standard,
well worn practice in this business. It has been practiced for
many years. It is sandbagging around sand boils; it is
reinforcing behind floodgates. Those are things that can be
planned for. We do have, along the Mississippi, significant
advanced notice when floods will be occurring, so people and
the forces are in place ready to do that. But that kind of
activity no longer counts in certifying a levee.
Ms. Norton. I am going to ask Mr. Graves if he has any
questions.
Let me go on, then.
You say, Mr. Larson, that the standard, the one percent
standard, is not a public safety standard, but an insurance
standard.
Mr. Larson. Correct.
Ms. Norton. Is it an appropriate standard?
Mr. Larson. One thing we looked at in our analysis was that
probably using a uniform standard across the Nation does not
make a lot of sense because of what Mr. Stockton talked about:
risk is variable. If you are protecting a cornfield, it is one
thing. If you are protecting a highly urbanized area such as
Mr. Sterman has talked about here, that 500-year level of
protection makes a lot of sense. It is important, by the way,
to understand that a 500-year flood is not five times larger
than a 100-year flood. In the St. Louis area it is about a foot
of difference, a foot in height of difference.
Ms. Norton. But, of course, if you are doing new
construction, that could make a lot of difference.
Pardon me. Go ahead.
Mr. Larson. So it is important that we look at those highly
urbanized areas and say we need to provide greater than one
percent chance level of protection for low----
Ms. Norton. You know, it seems so common sense. Why, then,
is there this universal one percent standard regardless----
Mr. Larson. Well, prior to the NFIP, the Corps of Engineers
typically built higher levees, such as there were in East St.
Louis, typically 500-year standard project flood, those kinds.
But once the NFIP came in and communities figured out that all
they really needed was 100-year levee to get out of insurance
and regulation, levees started to get dumbed down in the
Nation, and that wasn't a positive step.
That is one of the problems with having the magic line. If
we had universal flood insurance requirements, that magic line
between 100 and nothing wouldn't make any difference. Right now
it is an all or nothing line, instead of a graded line that
says your risk is variable and how you deal with that should be
variable. We don't do that in this Nation, but we need to get
to that point.
Ms. Norton. Does flood remapping encourage maintenance of
levees, dams, et cetera, over the years?
Mr. Larson. Well, it should encourage it.
Ms. Norton. But, in fact, did you find that there was great
noncompliance with maintenance upkeep?
Mr. Larson. Yes. What happened in Katrina was two things.
Since then--it is somewhat Katrina, but it is also evolution
over time. Both the Corps and FEMA realized that they were not
dealing appropriately with levees. FEMA had not been looking
carefully at levees when they mapped an area to determine if
that levee was really adequate. The Corps, in its inspection
program, had been issuing letters to communities for a number
of years saying you are in the program, but your operation and
maintenance is deficient; you should do this, this, and this.
In some cases they issued those letters for 10 years in a row
but never kicked the community out of the program. Now they
have religion, after Katrina, and said we need to make sure
communities have safe levees, and now I think you are seeing
some of the results of that.
Mr. Sterman. The remapping process certainly got our
attention. I mean, we have been moving since August 15th of
last year to rebuild these levees. We are not waiting for the
Federal Government or the Corps of Engineers to come in and do
the job; that will take too long. We are looking to raise $180
million locally, take the bull by the horns and get these
levees repaired. We know we are protecting people's lives; we
know we are protecting literally billions of dollars in
economic assets. We have got to get moving.
Mr. Norton. Well, that, of course, speaks positively to
what they are doing. I understand that, with all the priorities
that States have, it is easy enough to say, you know, the
levees look like they are doing fine for now and I need some
money for public education.
I am trying to get a grip, though, on financial
dislocation. We have heard this hypothetical: there are
changes, like you can't use the sandbags anymore; or we haven't
been in the floodplain before. Now, let's say we are doing what
Mr. Sterman says, we are going to fix it. Meanwhile, it appears
that if you are doing, for example, new construction, you have
to build higher than you would have to build if in fact the
levee were fixed that is now being fixed. So you will hear
complaints, my goodness, construction is there permanently.
Once we make this investment, that is a substantial addition to
the cost of construction.
Is there any flexibility you could suggest to keep new
construction--I am concerned about the economic turndown--from
essentially having to add what could be millions of dollars in
construction that will be unnecessary because the community is
doing what Mr. Sterman says, they are moving in there to fix
the problem? How can we deal with costs that may prove
unnecessary?
Mr. Larson. Well, I don't see those costs as unnecessary.
This all-or-nothing view of levees that says if we have got a
levee, we have to do absolutely nothing has been part of what
has led us down this road. So doing something behind a levee is
not necessarily a bad thing.
Ms. Norton. But I am not talking about the levee now, I am
talking about someone who has to now do something about
construction as the levee is being fixed.
Mr. Larson. I understand that. You know, we have thousands
of miles of identified floodplains in this Nation, and there is
construction occurring in them all the time, and it takes into
account flooding. Those are areas that aren't protected by
levees. So if construction isn't stopped there by the
identification of a floodplain, why would it be stopped behind
a levee? Are there added costs? Yes, there are added costs, but
it is a risk area. So I think there is a balance there. I
understand people see that and sometimes perceive that as a
``unnecessary cost.'' I don't believe that it is.
Mr. Sterman. Madam Chair, I think that this is one of the
most important questions in this whole process, is the economic
impact. We are finding, in our areas, when people are faced
with those increased costs of development, they are simply
choosing to go someplace else to build. In our area there are
other places to build.
The economic impact to us, even if we are able to make our
self-imposed standard of five years to get these levees fixed,
could be in the billions of dollars just in industry that is
foregone in our region; and the impact on individuals will be
substantial as well. And all this, frankly, to most of our
citizens and businesses seems rather arbitrary; one day
everything was fine and the next day, with the waving of a pen,
it is not fine anymore and all of our plans get changed and
literally billions of dollars of economic impact have to be
absorbed by our region.
Ms. Norton. The difference, I think, between you, Mr.
Larson, and Mr. Sterman, you are a true, Mr. Larson, floodplain
expert. Mr. Sterman, I think, speaks for how people develop.
Government doesn't have to do with that and people have----
Mr. Larson. Government does do with it. In the end, it pays
disaster costs.
Ms. Norton. No, no, no. See, forever the floodplain man.
The way in which development occurs in places like St. Louis
and, for that matter, the District of Columbia, is developers
decide among their choices. Anything that adds to the cost has
to be taken into account. Our Subcommittee, of course, has
jurisdiction over Federal construction and we see it everyday,
and we are going to have a hearing on the credit crunch and
what effect it may have on commercial real estate, which we are
now beginning to see happen.
I don't mean to pose this as a reason for stopping
remapping. I do mean to say that, even without using the R
word, something pretty bad is happening in this Country at this
time, and there are people throughout the United States that
are particularly concerned about whether or not development
will continue in their community. That means, to be clear,
construction of various kinds by the private sector; not by
government, by the private sector.
But if I may say so, there are people who bid on government
work who are bidding less today. One of the most fast
developing cities is the city that I represent, where you now
sit. New ballpark, building on every blade of grass. But when I
ask people about it, they tell me the way in which commercial
development takes place is people have gotten their financing
long before any recession sets in.
I went to a reception in advance of the first game and we
went on the top of the building owned by the Lerners, who are
the owners of the ballpark, and it has this wonderful view of
Washington, one of the great views of Washington, and I looked
down and I said, what is being built there? Because there was a
hole that hadn't been built up, and it is surrounded by all
kinds of buildings that are going up. And I was informed,
Congresswoman, that is a hole in the ground. One of our leading
construction companies was ordered to stop, it was to be a
hotel. We love hotels. It is not a government building, the
company was ordered to stop because the hotel had ``lost,'' had
lost its financing.
I don't know if this Subcommittee can do anything about it,
but I am steadily trying to find out as much as I can about it,
because to the extent that there is anything we can do about
it, I think we ought to make recommendations or somehow do what
we can. Many are absolutely petrified that the Administration
has become so concerned that it has become activists in the
marketplace.
So may I ask you to think about that subject, Mr. Larson,
because he brings a very important view to this matter, and
that is remember what the costs will be if you do not proceed?
And you don't have to think about Katrina to think about that;
all you have to do is think about what is happening, as I
speak, in the Midwest. If you want to talk damage, all you have
to think about is what is the most common hazard in the United
States of America, and you will come up with the word floods.
And you are speaking to a Member who represents the District of
Columbia, who saw floods in one of our communities, to which we
could only say, what? Floods that come from hurricanes and
hurricanes you have in communities like this that don't even
have much in the way of hazards.
So this Committee has jurisdiction over FEMA. It does not
mean to mitigate that concern at all. Normally, the concern
that Mr. Sterman raises would be of concern to us. It is of
particular concern to us today. We do not believe that this is
an ordinary kind of downturn of the kind we have seen for the
last several years. We had one in, what, 2000? This has been an
extraordinary economy.
I was with the Speaker in India. We went to London, India,
and Barcelona. There was talk of--and here we are on a climate
change trip and, of course, in India talking about the U.S.
nuclear deal, but everywhere we went there was not only
concern, but stark evidence that what was happening here, sub-
prime now spreading to other parts of the economy, had
definitely spread to Europe, was definitely in India, where the
Indians were looking for other funders now, funders other than
Europe, other than the United States.
So I am in a mood to take very seriously what is happening
to the economy. I understand, we all appreciate that this is a
cyclical economy. We know it will snap back. We know how strong
it is. We don't want to be part and parcel of worsening it at
the same time that the Administration and the Congress is
trying to relieve the effects on the economy through the
mechanisms they have. We mean to be in harmony. We do not know
how to do that.
So I am not here saying, therefore, fill in the blanks. I
am saying that with the very important testimony you have
brought to the table, I am asking you to think about this
subject in light of the twin risks, the risk of not proceeding
rapidly--because the one thing we know even less about than the
economy is what the next hazard will be--and the risk of a
downturn that we may, ourselves, have aided and abetted by not
being sufficiently flexible in thinking through this process
that we are now going through.
I want to thank each of you for really very important
testimony that this Subcommittee will take into full account.
Thank you again for coming.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1772.044